Phil. 2:6 is actually an arguement AGAINST the Trinity since it says that Jesus, “…..did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” which would not make sense to say if he were actually God. Why would God grasp at, or exploit, or take advantage of being equal to himself? It is nonsensical. The only conclusion is that Jesus is not God.

Phil 2:7 proves that Jesus was a created being, and therefore not God, “…..and was made in the likeness of men.”

Paul’s intent in his letter to the Philippians was to show how Christ was a humble man who did not grasp at equality with God, but was completely humble, and as a result God “highly exalted him.”

The post-apostolic, institutional church has always declared that Jesus is God.

So did the apostolic church from NT and first century before Nicea. John 1:1-5; 1:14-18; 5:17-18; 10:30; 8:24; 8:56-58; 20:28; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-12; Romans 9:5; 1 John 5:18.

Ignatius around 110 AD.

Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch at the same time Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna. He wrote seven letters to the Churches while en route to his execution in Rome around the year A. D. 110.

In Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians 18:2 he states:

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan . . .

In 19:3 he states:

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished, when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life . . .

In 7:2 he states:

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.

And in 1:1 . . .

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1 over whom Polycarp was Bishop he states:

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise . . .

The Catholic Church proclaimed at its First Ecumenical Council, at Nicaea in 325 A.D., that Jesus is “very God from very God.”

3. Justin: (165 AD) “[He] who is called God,” “God the Son of God,” “is even God.”
4. Irenaeus: (180-202 AD) “the Spirit designates both [Father and Son] by the name, of God,” “His essence, that He is God.”
5. Clement of Alexandria: (215 AD) “truly most manifest Deity,” “made equal to the Lord of the universe.”
6. Tertullian: (190-220 AD) “never separate from the Father, or other than the Father,” of the same “substance” as the Father, “Trinity.”
7. Hippolytus: (215 AD) “is God, being the substance of God,” “God the Word,” “in essential being with His Father.”
8. Origen: (250 AD) not beyond the “substance” of the Father, “the great God,” “we regard the Savior as God,” “without any beginning,” “fullness of His deity.”

Here is some more proof for the sons of God being angels. In the other other thread, you appealed to the church fathers in a desperate attempt to legitimize the trinity idea. Well, let’s see what they said about Genesis 6, shall we? I have a feeling you will soon disown these very same church fathers!

St. Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165): God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate needs, and all wickedness. . . . (Second Apology, “How the Angels Transgressed,” #5)

Tatian the Assyrian (ca. 120 – 180 AD): “[God]… committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by the love of women, and begat children who are those who are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness.” [2nd Apology, #5].

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202): And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants. And the angels brought as presents to their wives teachings of wickedness,1 in that they brought them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colors and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God; by the entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled. [Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, #18].

Tertullian (ca. 160 – 225 AD): For they, withal, who instituted them are assigned, under condemnation, to the penalty of death, — those angels, to wit, who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men; so that this ignominy also attaches to woman…Was it that women, without material causes of splendour, and without ingenious contrivances of grace, could not please men, who, while still unadorned, and uncouth and — so to say — crude and rude, had moved (the mind of) angels? or was it that the lovers would appear sordid and — through gratuitous use — contumelious, if they had conferred no (compensating) gift on the women who had been enticed into connubial connection with them?… Women who possessed angels (as husbands) could desire nothing more; they had, forsooth, made a grand match! [On the Apparel of Women, Chapter 2, “The Origin of Female Ornamentation, Traced Back to the Angels who had Fallen”].

the church fathers are not infallible; they got some things right and some things wrong. The key to always filter their writings through the only infallible source, the Scriptures, which are God-breathed -2 Timothy 3:16, therefore, infallible.

“the church fathers are not infallible; they got some things right and some things wrong. The key to always filter their writings through the only infallible source, the Scriptures, which are God-breathed -2 Timothy 3:16, therefore, infallible.”

So if they are fallible, then they are not very reliable at all, are they? Especially since you seem to pick and choose when they are “right” and when they are “wrong”?

Why did virtually all of the early church leaders believe that angels copulated with humans? How could so many of them be so wrong?

Essentially, your appeals to the church fathers is subjective. You appeal to them when they suit your purpose and disown them when they don’t. The end result is that your defense of trinitarian doctrine hinges on the opinions of men whom you regard as fallible and which you subjectively appeal to. Not a very strong defense of Christianity, I’m afraid.

Oh and by the way, when it comes to angels copulating with humans, the church fathers were simply reading what the text says. You, on the other hand, insert your own opinions into the text when the traditional interpretation embarrasses you. You do that all the time, such as your recent debacle regarding the book of Ezekiel.

Paul’s christiology at its best is vague, and for sure it’s not like christianity today,yet maybe it’s near from it.
Christians quickly answer but paul called Jesus God. So what? There are many passages for Paul referring to Jesus as something else different from (one God), so there’s a problem. Paul didn’t give answers for these contradictions.

No, Philippians 2:5-8 and Colossians 1:15-20 is clear on the Deity of Christ, and harmonizes well with John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and 20:28, that Jesus pre-existed from all eternity and became a man, lived, taught the truth, never sinned, was crucified, died, suffered for our sins, rose from the dead, etc.

Ken,
You are the proof for what I said before.
Why do you think someone like Bart Ehrman is not sure about Paul’s belief?
Paul exalted Jesus, but in which sense? Here’s the question.
Also, Paul didn’t give answers for the contradictions about his belief, which is not like christians’ today, with the OT.
Paul as I said before, he tried to be a deep author, yet he ended up with very obscure writings filled with many contradictions.
1 Timothy 2:5, is very clear that Paul did consider Jesus as something else different from that (one God).
Moreover, Paul’s view about the resurrection seems to be that he didn’t believe in the physical one.

“In sum, Paul’s christology identifies Jesus as the perfect image of God, the archetypal man, one sent by God (without preexistence) and indwelt by God who is Lord and Savior yet essentially subordinate to God. None of Paul’s Christological statements identify Jesus as God, not even in Romans 9.5 which contains a grammatical issue.”

Given that the Bible does not support the claim of Christ’s deity, one would think that it is about high time that all honest Christians finally admit that Jesus is not God, and reform their religion accordingly in order to theologically realign with the two Abrahamic sister faiths.

Doing so would make Christianity more palatable, easier to understand and defend, and there would be no need to bend over backwards trying to reinterpret the Bible in order to argue, explain, and prove a false doctrine that is unbiblical in the first place.

Luke 20:36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the …
… for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and
are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. …
//biblehub.com/luke/20-36.htm – 18k

Romans 8:14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the …
… For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. … For all who are
being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. …
//biblehub.com/romans/8-14.htm – 17k

Romans 8:19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the …
… For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. … For
the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. …
//biblehub.com/romans/8-19.htm – 17k

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God …
… for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. … For you
are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. …
//biblehub.com/galatians/3-26.htm – 17k

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called …
… “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. … “Blessed
are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. …
//biblehub.com/matthew/5-9.htm – 17k

1 John 3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that …
… Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him …
//biblehub.com/1_john/3-1.htm – 20k

Philippians 2:15 so that you may become blameless and pure …
… That you may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the
midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine as lights in the …
//biblehub.com/philippians/2-15.htm – 19k

John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in …
… But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: …

““In sum, Paul’s christology identifies Jesus as the perfect image of God, the archetypal man, one sent by God (without preexistence) and indwelt by God who is Lord and Savior yet essentially subordinate to God.”

I would reply:

He has no biblical proof for the assertion that Jesus in his divine nature is essentially subordinate to God. Rather the opposite is obviously the case.

My own view would be that:

The subordination of his human nature is still a subordination by covenant and free will between the Word and the Father antecedent to the incarnation. Not by force or essential to the divine nature of the Word.

“He has no biblical proof for the assertion that Jesus in his divine nature is essentially subordinate to God. Rather the opposite is obviously the case.”

you have created a lego god. you have god popping in and out of different natures.
tell me what happens when the person of your god becomes flesh, how did it share that experience with the other nature? how does the world of flesh share with the world of spirit?
it is is a game of “switching” ?

if no experiences can be shared, then how many is 1 person?

is it right for god to say, when he is with his powers/divine nature/whatever that he is going to subordinate himself soon?

“is it right for god to say, when he is with his powers/divine nature/whatever that he is going to subordinate himself soon?”

He subordinated himself without ceasing to be co-equal. This seems to be another paradox of the incarnation.

He has to remain co-equal because he is doing things that God alone does, for example, holding all things together by the power of his word. If he created all things in the beginning it must be assumed he is involved in the continuous creation of everything that comes in to existence.

“He has to remain co-equal because he is doing things that God alone does, for example,”

so if a human creates a car through a computer, then the computer is human being, right?

”
holding all things together by the power of his word. If he created all things in the beginning it must be assumed he is involved in the continuous creation of everything that comes in to existence.”

although i believe these are pagan beliefs paul was inspired by, i don’t think that any of this puts the person of jesus as “co-equal” with the father. the father is the causer and is practising on “the son”

LOL, we have been through this before. Do you guys really have such a short memory or are you willfully dense?

In the Tanakh, there are two different phrases that are used multiple times:

1. Bene ha-elohim – literally the “sons/children of God”.
2. Bene el-hay – literally the “sons/children of the Living God”.

“Bene ha-elohim” is used in the Bible exclusively for angels. “Bene al-hay” is used when referring to humans. See the difference?

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

“Most scholars…interpret “sons of God” [bene ha-elohim] as referring to supernatural beings in accordance with the meaning of the expression in the other passages.”

It also states:

“This interpretation accords with Enoch chapters 6-7, etc., and with Jude 1:6, where the unnatural sin of the men of Sodom who went after “strange flesh” is compared with that of the angels (compare 2 Peter 2:4).”

Virtually all of the early church authorities and most modern scholars interpret Genesis 6:2 as stating that angels copulated with humans, but ignorant apologists like Ken and Ignoramus think that they know better! How’s that for irony?

Lol, but your Bible always uses one phrase for angels. Your bias in this matter is clear to everyone, which is why no one takes you seriously. You’re just another apologist clown who is ignorant of Biblical exegesis and scholarship.

“He has to remain co-equal because he is doing things that God alone does”

so you said god does x
someone else does x
therefore some one else is god

you have said that jesus and the father = the same .

the only way for you is that you believe jesus does something DIFFERENT than the father in the act of creating, in that way you have two different persons …like the pagan gods who are different from each other.

“1. Bene ha-elohim – literally the “sons/children of God”.
2. Bene el-hay – literally the “sons/children of the Living God”.
“Bene ha-elohim” is used in the Bible exclusively for angels. “Bene al-hay” is used when referring to humans. See the difference? ”

The distinction is more likely to be found in the redemptive outcomes of the groups. The groups of angels and the humans called bene ha Elohim contain those who would perish or already have done so, like Satan, whereas those denoted by bene el hay would not perish.

Lol, more nonsensical suppositions from Ignoramus. Now you’re resorting to non-sequiturs? You haven’t proven that the bene ha-elohim could be humans. Prove that first, then you can make assumptions like this.

” Since the early nineteenth century, however, much of critical scholarship has considered the letter’s style and use of words (especially when compared with Colossians), its concept of the church, and other points of doctrine put forward by the writer as grounds for serious doubt about authorship by Paul. The letter may then be the work of a secretary writing at the apostle’s direction or of a later disciple who sought to develop Paul’s ideas for a new situation around A.D. 80–100.”

Periodically, I visit the website of the late Jack Chick to read his absurd “Chick tracts”. It’s mostly for laughs. A new tract was posted on the website called “Adopted”. I won’t summarize the plot so here is the link: